"On the outskirts of creation, unknown, unseen "structures" are tugging on our universe like cosmic magnets, a controversial new study says.

Everything in the known universe is said to be racing toward the massive clumps of matter at more than 2 million miles (3.2 million kilometers) an hour—a movement the researchers have dubbed dark flow.

The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know, according to study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland."

What?? Einstein didn't mention this. Hawking didn't mention this. Both have elaborate theories about the universe and the the way it works yet both fail to mention these "magnetic structures"? When are you guys going to get it? Einstein and Hawking and all the others in this Disney-world of make-believe physics are just jerking you off. It is not a question of "dark flow", it is a question of Dark Age, as in Dark Age of Physics. Please just go back to basics and tell me what gravity is. Until then, please just shut the ---- up.

What?? Einstein didn't mention this. Hawking didn't mention this. Both have elaborate theories about the universe and the the way it works yet both fail to mention these "magnetic structures"? When are you guys going to get it? Einstein and Hawking and all the others in this Disney-world of make-believe physics are just jerking you off. It is not a question of "dark flow", it is a question of Dark Age, as in Dark Age of Physics. Please just go back to basics and tell me what gravity is. Until then, please just shut the ---- up.

What the heck is your problem? Are you implying that Einstein, Hawking or anyone else knew ALL there is to know about the universe, and that nothing else can ever be studied or discovered, or even hinted at?

You should take into account that most every major scientific theory or idea that we take for granted today as being self-evident was once laughed at, and the scientists who stood bravely in the face of ridicule to further study those ideas are now people we revere as great thinkers.

You don't care to hear about new ideas that are not yet backed up by years of scientific experimentation? That's your prerogative. But whether some of these ideas pan out or not, many of us find them fascinating in their own right, and there's no need for attacking those who do.

What the heck is your problem? Are you implying that Einstein, Hawking or anyone else knew ALL there is to know about the universe, and that nothing else can ever be studied or discovered, or even hinted at?

You should take into account that most every major scientific theory or idea that we take for granted today as being self-evident was once laughed at, and the scientists who stood bravely in the face of ridicule to further study those ideas are now people we revere as great thinkers.

You don't care to hear about new ideas that are not yet backed up by years of scientific experimentation? That's your prerogative. But whether some of these ideas pan out or not, many of us find them fascinating in their own right, and there's no need for attacking those who do.

Science works from observed evidence and draws conclusions based on this observation. It does not start from ideas squiggled on a blackboard. These people, Einstein and Hawking, spilled a lot of ink telling us how the universe works via their blackboards. Evidently, they were wrong. Worse, we spent a lot of time and MONEY investigating every whim Einstein ever had. Physicists even styled their hair after Einstein--I know this for a fact since I was taught by one of them. Yet, now we see how little they knew---and how much basic knowledge they did not explain---worse--did not investigate. They use undefined terms. They build theories without understanding these "terms". They refuse to investigate basics in their quest for personal greatness--great theories which don't correspond to reality. Until they define gravity, how can you build any theory in which gravity is a central player?

This discovery is really wonderful for a lot of reasons. One is that it represents new, observed facts. The second is that it just points out how full of s--t some of what we call Physics really is. We have got to stop this pissing away of our wealth testing bad theory with ever larger, more expensive,particle accelerators when our whole world is in peril. Instead of failing and calling for a larger particle accelerator, why not go back to basics and investigate gravity?

Science works from observed evidence and draws conclusions based on this observation. It does not start from ideas squiggled on a blackboard. These people, Einstein and Hawking, spilled a lot of ink telling us how the universe works via their blackboards. Evidently, they were wrong. Worse, we spent a lot of time and MONEY investigating every whim Einstein ever had. Physicists even styled their hair after Einstein--I know this for a fact since I was taught by one of them. Yet, now we see how little they knew---and how much basic knowledge they did not explain---worse--did not investigate. They use undefined terms. They build theories without understanding these "terms". They refuse to investigate basics in their quest for personal greatness--great theories which don't correspond to reality. Until they define gravity, how can you build any theory in which gravity is a central player?

This discovery is really wonderful for a lot of reasons. One is that it represents new, observed facts. The second is that it just points out how full of s--t some of what we call Physics really is. We have got to stop this pissing away of our wealth testing bad theory with ever larger, more expensive,particle accelerators when our whole world is in peril. Instead of failing and calling for a larger particle accelerator, why not go back to basics and investigate gravity?

Well I agree that money is wasted in the sciences sometimes. And I agree that perhaps while the world is falling apart, scarce resources should be more carefully allocated. But I don't know that the research being done with particle accelerators is all based on bad theory. It seems a bit unrealistic to accept that thousands of scientists working in those fields are all really just too stupid to know that their work is based on bad theory.

I just feel that many scientific ideas we take for granted today began with somebody who thought outside the box, at least as an initial step. There's no reason good ideas cannot spring from the same kind of intuitive thinking today, and then either supported or discarded through experimentation.

But I'm not a scientist, just a layperson interested in science. I'd like to hear JJT's view on this.

This finding may help to resurrect a theory proposed about 30 years ago.
Maybe the universe is much larger than we thought and has a number of super duper massive objects distributed randomly at great distances from each other. These objects would pull on the smaller objects(galactic clusters) between them, maybe creating the dark energy effect. These smaller objects would eventually be pulled into the super duper massive objects. The super duper massive objects may reach a certain density which causes them to suddenly collapse then rebound creating a mini big bang, recycling the matter back out into the universe in the form of the light element hydrogen and creating the microwave background radiation.

Well I agree that money is wasted in the sciences sometimes. And I agree that perhaps while the world is falling apart, scarce resources should be more carefully allocated. But I don't know that the research being done with particle accelerators is all based on bad theory. It seems a bit unrealistic to accept that thousands of scientists working in those fields are all really just too stupid to know that their work is based on bad theory.

I just feel that many scientific ideas we take for granted today began with somebody who thought outside the box, at least as an initial step. There's no reason good ideas cannot spring from the same kind of intuitive thinking today, and then either supported or discarded through experimentation.

But I'm not a scientist, just a layperson interested in science. I'd like to hear JJT's view on this.

Thumbnail of Theoretical Physics/Cosmology

1. The universe is static. Then they changed to,
2. The universe is expanding. Then they changed to,
3. The universe is expanding but will contact some day. Then,
4, It may be slowing but to contract we need more matter. So, we will postulate "dark matter", not by observation but by magic, out of whole cloth.
5. OK, it is not contracting at all but will expand. Then,
6. To expand, we need more energy (of expansion) so we will postulate "dark energy", not by observation but by magic out of whole cloth.
7. OK, the universe is going sideways and so all of the above is inoperative.

Red Barron has some ideas. I have some ideas about aether energy. I am sure each and every one of you who have thought about it have ideas. But we don't push our ideas forward as "science" which is the fatal error of theoretical physicists. What they do is more philosophy than science. All their squiggles on a black board pretending to be math prove-ups are all for naught. Science must be driven by observation and observed facts. Science cannot be driven by theory first and then more theory to make up for previously failed theory.

We have used an needed physicists in every modern large endeavor. The Manhattan Project is an example. The space program and semiconductors are a couple more.

We need physicists to help chemists in disposing of carbon dioxide emissions in coal fired power plants, for example. The USA, Britain, Germany, Russia and China all have large coal reserves which could immediately be used to produce electricity if a way could be found to dispose of all the excess carbon dioxide. New fusion containment technology or sonofusion or cold fusion would really hit the spot right now just in case we could no longer use coal or oil for energy. New light weight battery technology would also come in handy now that we are finally coming to grips with the problems of powering cars using oil. Physicists have worked on this battery problem in the past and could be re-employed for this purpose now.

But no. Instead our finest minds have set sail on an 80 year odyssey to investigate the theories of Einstein and the origin of the universe. Their tool of choice are ever larger particle accelerators which cost ever larger sums measured in the billions no matter which currency you calculate. And what do they have to show for 70 years work? See 1-7 above. This is the 21st Century. It is time for a fresh start in Physics.